The English translation of the Bhikkhu-vibhanga: the first part of the Suttavibhanga, which itself is the first book of the Pali Vinaya Pitaka, one of the three major ‘baskets’ of Therevada canonical literature. It is a collection of rules for Buddhist monks.
The English translation of the Vinaya-pitaka (first part, bhikkhu-vibhanga) contains many...

Monks’ Expiation (Pācittiya) 80

Bu-Pc.80.1.1BD.3.61 … at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time the Order came to be convened on some business or other. The group of six monks, making robes, gave (their) consent to one.[1] Then the Order, thinking, “We will carry out that (formal) act for the sake of which we were convened,” set aside the motion. Then that monk, thinking, “Even thus do they carry out a (formal) act against each one; against whom do you carry out the (formal) act?” not having given the consent, rising up from his seat, departed. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying:

“How can this monk, when the Order is engaged in decisive talk,[2]Vin.4.153 not having given the consent, rising up from his seat, depart?” …

“Is it true, as is said, that you, monk, when the Order was engaged in decisive talk, not having given the consent, rising up from your seat, departed?”

“It is true, lord.”

The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked him, saying: “How can you, foolish man, when the Order is engaged in decisive talk, not having given the consent, rising up from your seat, depart? It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

“Whatever monk, when the Order is engaged in decisive talk, not having given the consent, rising up from his seat, should depart, there is an offence of expiation.”

When the Order is engaged in decisive talk means: a matter is announced (but) not decided, or a motion is set aside, or a resolution is unfinished.[3]

Not having given the consent, rising up from his seat, should depart means: if he goes away, thinking, “Why should it not carry out this (formal) act (although) it may be quashed,[4] (although) it may be incomplete?”,[5] there is an offence of wrong-doing. In leaving (the space of) a reach of the hand[6] from the assembly, there is an offence of wrong-doing. When he has left, there is an offence of expiation.[7]

Bu-Pc.80.2.2 If he thinks that it is a legally valid act when it is a legally valid act[8] (and) not having given the consent, rising up from his seat, departs, there is an offence of expiation. If he is in doubt as to whether it is a legally valid act … offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is not a legally valid act when it is a legally valid act … no offence. If he thinks that it is a legally valid act when it is not a legally valid act, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether it is not a legally valid act, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is not a legally valid act when it is not a legally valid act, there is no offence.

Bu-Pc.80.2.3 There is no offence if he goes away, thinking: “There will come to be quarrel or dispute or strife or contention for the Order”; if he goes away, thinking: “There will BD.3.63 come to be schism in the Order or dissension in the Order”; if he goes away, thinking: “He will carry out the (formal) act according to what is not rule, or by an incomplete congregation, or against one not suitable for a (formal) act”[9]; if, being ill, he goes away; if he goes away because there is something to be done for one who is ill; if he goes away to relieve himself;* if anxious not to find fault with the (formal) act,[10] he goes away, thinking: “I will come back again”; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.